Supreme Court dismisses AIIMS plea in 15-year-old's pregnancy termination case

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated that the institution cannot override the decision-making role of the girl’s family. The court emphasised that the wishes of the parents must be given precedence in such matters.

The bench also advised the institute to clearly communicate the medical implications of the procedure to the girl’s guardians so they can make an informed decision. The bench has also asked the Centre to consider amending the law to permit rape survivors to terminate unwanted pregnancies even beyond 20 weeks. The top court said that when there is a pregnancy due to rape, there should not be a time limit.

"This is a curative petition. An unwanted pregnancy cannot be thrust on a person. Imagine she is a child. She should be studying now. But we want to make her a mother. Imagine the pain, the humiliation the child has suffered in this," the bench said.

Earlier, on April 24, another bench of the apex court had permitted the medical termination of pregnancy, highlighting a woman’s right to reproductive choice. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing AIIMS, submitted to the court that waiting for four more weeks will be beneficial to the minor as well as the foetus, considering that the foetus is already 30 weeks old, reports The Indian Express.

“It will be a live baby with severe deformities. Minor's mother will have lifelong health issues and cannot reproduce. Minor's mother will have lifelong health issues. This child can be given for adoption. It has been 30 weeks now. It is a viable life now," she said. Bhati further pointed out that the MTP Act forbids termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks due to impending health risks beyond that.

The bench, however, refused to uphold the point, stating, “Unwanted pregnancies cannot be burdened on the woman,” the CJI said. The bench further added that this is a case of child rape and the survivor will have a lifelong scar and trauma if termination is not allowed. Pointing out the problem with the existing law, the bench added, “Please amend your law so that in case of pregnancy of a minor rape victim, the time limit will not apply.”

According to The Daily, this came after Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court permitted a medical termination of pregnancy. AIIMS asked the court to reconsider its April 24 order. AIIMS said a new evaluation of the minor revealed serious risks to both her and the foetus if the procedure went ahead at this stage. Citing “serious legal and ethical issues,” AIIMS stated that the medical board found the pregnancy had progressed to a point where ending it would amount to a preterm delivery of a viable foetus with a reasonable likelihood of survival, rather than a standard abortion.

They further added, “The medical board has specifically warned that the prematurely delivered neonate will require a prolonged stay in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) with life and organ support, and that the child faces a high risk of significant and permanent long-term disabilities, including blindness, deafness, and neurodevelopmental delay. AIIMS would thus be knowingly delivering a foetus with a high chance of lifelong disability.”

However, the bench dismissed the petition, stating, “It is strange that the review petitioner, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, is not inclined to obey the order of the Supreme Court and instead, is assailing the order of this Court dated 24.04.2026 in order to defeat the constitutional rights of the minor daughter of the appellant herein.” Following this, AIIMS filed a curative petition against the dismissal of the review petition, but Judge Bagchi pointed out that AIIMS is a medical provider and has no right to make decisions on behalf of the citizens, against their wishes, reports The Daily.

The court spoke with two AIIMS doctors who referenced a previous MTP case to underscore the procedure’s risks. However, the court said the doctors were placing more emphasis on the foetus than on the minor, with the CJI remarking that there was “too much focus on the child and not the mother who has gone through such pain.” Later that day, Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan issued notice on a contempt petition against AIIMS. They directed the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, and the Director of AIIMS, New Delhi, to appear via video conference on May 4.